Britain: Army Chief Calls for War Preparations in Terms of Syria

A Nusra Front terrorists with 'non-lethal' machine guns provided by the West, they're expecting 'lethal' weapons now to be paid for by western taxpayers

Advertisment

While the Federal Security Service Department in Dagestan has confirmed that more than 200 people from Dagestan are in Syria and some of them are fighting alongside the armed terrorists and jihadists in Syria against the secular government of President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, the British army chief urged his government to prepare for war in Syria and used the old propaganda phrases about the threats of the chemical weapons in Syria.

The President of Dagestan, Ramazan Abdulatipov, said in a recent statement that an unknown amount of Dagestan people have already left the country in order to join the foreign-backed terrorists in Syria and to fight against the secular government of this Arab nation.

The Federal Security Service Department in Dagestan assumed that more than 200 Dagestan youths are actually in Syria and stated that “some of them” are already fighting against the Syrian government – alongside the foreign-backed terrorists and the Syrian Al Qaeda offshoot (Al Nusra Front / Jabhat Al Nusra).

The Russian President Vladimir Putin as well as the Russian Foreign Minister have said in last month that more than 600 militants from Russia and European countries are actually fighting in Syria alongside the armed terrorist groups and Al Qaeda-linked jihadists against the secular government in Damascus.

Meanwhile, after it was mentioned by a diplomatic source from the European Union (EU) that the most European states have currently lost their interest to send weapons and military aid to the armed terrorists fighting in Syria against the secular government in Damascus as well as against the Syrian army, the retiring British army chief, General Sir David Richards, has warned Britain’s government that their efforts to stop the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the “forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad” could be able to drag the United Kingdom (UK) into a war – to prevent that the chemical weapons of the Syrian government will fall into the “wrong hands”.

The sad and also funny point in this statement is that the British government and people such as David Cameron and William Hague have first supported these “wrong hands” of the Syrian Al Qaeda offshoot and the “wrong hands” of the criminals and thugs of the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA). In addition, the support for the now powerful “Al Nusra Front” (Jabhat Al Nusra, Syrian Al Qaeda branch) was ended recently by several European states and the US administration in Washington, but these sides are trying currently to further support the terrorists and criminals of the slightly more secular “Free Syrian Army” terrorist groups, which are currently losing most of their battles against the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) as well as in their armed infighting against the Islamist groups of the Syrian Al Qaeda offshoot – Jabhat al Nusra / al-Nusra Front and their affiliated groups in Syria.

The “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) has the order by their masters from abroad to regain the control of territories in Syria from the now powerful Syrian Al Qaeda offshoot because the US administration under President Barack Obama has finally acknowledged that the plan of arming jihadist groups in Syria to create chaos, suicide bombings and to support the plan to overthrow Bashar al Assad and his government in Damascus has completely failed.

Some might add that this was clear from the beginning, but ok. The arming of Islamists, jihadists and Al Qaeda-linked groups is never a good idea and should also fall under war crimes if it’s carried out to overthrow the government of a sovereign state, to be honest. At least, Washington made a U-turn regarding the arming of the Al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra Front, which is meanwhile listed as terrorist organization.

Al Qaeda – Al Nusra Front

So, the retiring British Chief of the Defense Staff, General David Richards, has warned his government that the UK could be dragged into a war in Syria to prevent that the chemical weapons in the stockpiles of the Syrian army fall into the “wrong hands”.

Thus, the British Prime Minister David Cameron has for at least 2 years supported the “wrong hands” with British tax money in Syria. Not to mention somebody such as William Hague. It is to add that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), in its majority, is still on the side of the Syrian government and President Bashar al-Assad in the capital Damascus, although the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) consists of all different kinds of people from the society in Syria.

There must be a reason for the situation that there were just several soldiers and higher ranks who fled from the army to show their support for the external staged “Syrian opposition” or to gain some personal benefits from foreign powers. It is an easy thing – if the majority of the Syrian army still supports the government in Syria, which has itself not the control about the stockpiles of chemical weapons on Syrian territory, but the Syrian army has the control above them, then there has to be a good reason for the situation that the army in its majority still backs this “horrible regime” in Syria.

In addition, there must be a reason why Syria has been one of the safeties countries before the beginning of the proxy war and Western plots in order to overthrow an unpleasant leader of the only secular Arab country, which is also the last Arab country without an US military base. Not to mention the topic Iran.

So, Britain’s retiring General Sir David Richards has warned that the “risk of terrorism is becoming more and more dominant” in the British visions for what Britain might want to do in Syria and if “that risk develops”, then the British government would certainly have to act; and in regards of the chemical weapons and the “wrong hands”, the same hands that were supported by the British government in advance, the retiring Army Chief suggested that the British government should already prepare for a war in Syria.

He said, for example, the following:

“If we saw chemical weapons proliferate as a result of what is happening in Syria then we would have to act.” (General Sir David Richards)

General Sir David Richards further said that so-called no-fly zones over Syria would be “insufficient” and that the Western military and NATO forces would have to use ground forces in Syria to fight against the Syrian government and to hit ground targets when they really want to implement so-called no-fly zones above Syrian territory. General Sir David Richards even compared Syria with Libya but completely missed that the Syrian army is not comparable with the former Libyan forces of the murdered Libyan leader Gaddafi.

At least, the retiring British army chief was correct when he spoke about the Syrian air defences that have to be taken out first by the NATO forces in the case of a military intervention / military invasion of Syria.

2 Comments

Political leaders who instigate wars, their family members, close advisers and supporters exhibit great panache when advocating wars only because they are assured of increased protection from the dreadful consequences. For, if a certainty existed that they, without a shadow of doubt, would become casualties during their planned armed conflict, no war would ever occur.

Unfortunately, the usual casualties of war have no significant input into decisions to go into a war.

Also, war enthusiasts choose to ignore significant changes since about 1995 which have now completely altered war outcomes. Most people in all countries, now own basic cell telephones with camera/video facilities. They can easily contact any of the many global cable television networks with ‘breaking news’ images of war. The gory scenes of military adventures are instantly transmitted globally. Unlike previously, military campaigns are now rendered ineffective because of this single factor. Instead, these new realities induce terrorism and increase national and global security concerns. Note the unfavourable results for the sophisticated western military powers in their Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Even in such places as Libya where they claim military success, they have been left with new terrorist enemies!

The inevitable global realities of increasing modern day technology use, increased air travel and Internet use, integration of varied cultural groups into same nations and the spectre of increased terrorism must force all war enthusiasts to start to consider brand new strategies to bring about complete global war prevention. Short-term objectives as the removal of one detested person from power should no longer be a basis for the long-term miseries inflicted by political leaders on millions of innocents in their planned war to remove the abhorred leader.

Moreover, because of our modern day realities, wars are now progressively becoming ‘un-winnable’ contests in spite of any military advantage possessed. However, political leaders who instigate wars, their wives, family members and their seemingly very intelligent military advisors and war-news commentators seem to gloss over this very plain fact because they are hardly affected.

Continued planning for wars should no longer be the norm because permanent global war prevention is now quite feasible – if political leaders would accept it – as illustrated in http://www.preventallwars.org. Furthermore, the enforceable preventive mechanism of war would still achieve the removal of any abominable political leader.